Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>]

Hey, that's an idea for Fred.  Why doesn't he translate from the Greek 
translation (LXX) into English, so that we can have that to add to the 
English translation mix?  Of course, technically a translation from a 
translation is classified as a paraphrase, isn't it?  At least, using the 
Masoretic text, we can still see the original non-pointed language, and can 
more easily spot where the Masoretes might have made an interpretation.  Very 
frequently, those interpretations are not apparent in a translation into a 
second language, especially a non-cognate one.  (Sorry, Fred, but Hebrew and 
Greek are not cognates.  Alphabets do not determine if languages are cognate. 
 Words and grammar do.)  So I don't see where Fred is really seeking the 
answer to "what did the original authors write?"  All the LXX can really give 
us is an interpretation from a time earlier than the Masoretic Text.

Paul Zellmer

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Riley
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 5:50 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet

Are you aware of why the LXX has historically (in recent centuriess) 
been rejected?  Most translation committees start with an acceptance of 
the MT as 'the' text.  Unless the MT fails to make sense, why would they 
go to the LXX?  After all, it is the MT they are translating, not the 
LXX.  I am not sure how that leads to the conclusion that the LXX has 
'failed' as a translation.  You may also find that the picture is not 
quite so clear if you look beyond English language translations.  Unless 
things have changed recently, there are still millions of Christians who 
give the LXX primacy over the MT.  Perhaps it would help if you saw it 
in terms of two different questions: 1) what did the original author 
write? and 2) what is the original reading of the MT tradition?  I 
suspect most translation committees are (for very good reasons) asking 
question 2), whereas you seem to be wanting to ask question 1).  How 
much help the LXX can give in answering either question will depend to a 
large degree on your understanding of the history of the text(s), 
including all those religious and philosophical questions we like to 
pretend don't exist so we can talk about the Hebrew text without getting 
side-tracked into interminable arguments over doctrinal details.

Kevin Riley

On 26/11/2010 9:23 AM, fred burlingame wrote:
> Hello Bryant:
>
> Happy Thanksgiving.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I agree; and modern day publishers (and their academic consultants) of
> english language bibles, agree also as to the big difference between:
>
> a. tanakh; and
>
> b. septuagint.
>
> These publishers' apparent, uniform rejection of the septuagint, and uniform
> acceptance of numerous, corresponding, but differing, renderings in the
> tanakh, argues strongly in favor of the conclusion that the septuagint has
> failed ... as a translation.
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Bryant J. Williams III<bjwvmw AT com-pair.net
>> wrote:
>> Dear Fred B.,
>>
>> One has to distinguish from Hebrew Tanakh and Greek LXX. The Tanakh was
>> written
>> primarily in Hebrew with portions of Daniel, Ezra and a verse in Jeremiah
>> in
>> Aramaic of the 6th - 5th Centuries BC. The LXX is Greek from the 3rd
>> Century
>> (ca. 250) - 1st Century BC. There are some later editors, e.g. Theodotion,
>> etc.,
>> from about the 1st - 3rd Century AD. Of course, the Great Codices,
>> Alexandrinus,
>> Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are from the 4th Century AD (ca. 320) have the
>> LXX and
>> the NT.
>>
>> Now that the DSS Biblical MSS have been open to all scholars they will now
>> be
>> included in any text-critical problems in translating the Tanakh into
>> English.
>> TNIV or NIV 2011, and possibly others, was supposed to use the DSS for this
>> purpose (?).
>>
>> The use of the LXX can possibly help in some of the hapax legomena, but not
>> always. The Pentateuch, or Law of Moses, is fairly consistent in its
>> translation
>> method, but the rest of the Tanakh is not so consistent. See the NETS
>> translation of the LXX for further information
>>     (1) The print version is available: Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G.
>> Wright
>> are the editors and the publisher is Oxford University Press (Oxford)
>> www.oup.com/us  ISBN (9780195289756);
>>
>> (2) An electronic version (PDFs viewable online or downloadable) is
>>   accessible
>> online at: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/.
>>
>> I am giving a general overview of the situation, but not too general.
>>
>> BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to all
>>
>> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "fred burlingame"<tensorpath AT gmail.com>
>> To: "fred putnam"<fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
>> Cc:<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
>>
>>
>>   >  Hello Fred:
>>> I am not sure of the boundaries of these two professions: textual
>> criticism;
>>> and comparative linguistics.
>>>
>>> You may well be correct that my original post in this thread addresses
>>> matters more within the former versus the latter profession. After all
>> has
>>> been said in this thread to date however, I am not entirely convinced of
>> the
>>> wholly alien nature of ancient greek to masoretic text ("MT") hebrew. If
>>> cuneiform can inform MT, why not septuagint greek, from a comparative
>>> linguistic standpoint?
>>>
>>> Be that as it may, my un-scientific experience with modern english bible
>>> publishers, unanimously accepting the MT rendering and correspondingly
>>> rejecting a competing and differing septuagint greek rendering ...
>> discloses
>>> to me that this phenomenon occurs frequently and not "in a relatively
>> few"
>>> occasions. Such circumstance implies to me one of two conclusions:
>>>
>>> a. the failure of one language to achieve translation of the other; or
>>>
>>> b. the two languages addressed two different subjects and stories.
>>>
>>> Either way, the situation becomes remarkable .... in my humble opinion.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> fred burlingame
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:36 PM, fred putnam<fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Fred,
>>>>
>>>> It seems that your question has more to do with textual criticism--why
>>>> relatively few LXX/MT differences are decided "in favour of" LXX. Is
>> this
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> You might find Emanuel Tov, *Textual Criticism*, helpful, or his
>> earlier
>>>> work on the Septuagint (1980?). Sorry, I'm doing this from home, and
>> most of
>>>> my books are at school.
>>>>
>>>> Also, no English version that I know footnotes every time the
>> translators
>>>> or editors decide to accept a particular reading of LXX. This is,
>> again, a
>>>> matter of textual criticism (above).
>>>>
>>>> Fred Putnam
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:54 PM, fred burlingame
>> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Hello Kevin:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can appreciate your distinction between alphabet and language.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tie that binds greek and hebrew, phoenician alphabet, appears to
>> me,
>>>>> however, more than a matter of form.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hebrew_alphabet
>>>>>
>>>>> I just don't see why (cognate to hebrew) ugarit language (for example,
>> but
>>>>> without limitation) instructs the understanding of biblical hebrew;
>>>>> whereas
>>>>> ancient greek does not do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> fred burlingame
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Kevin Riley<
>> klriley AT alphalink.com.au
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes - the sequences are similar because the sequence was borrowed
>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>>> alphabet.  No one is questioning the borrowing of the alphabet.  But
>>>>> sharing
>>>>>> an alphabet does not make two languages 'cognate' - at least, not as
>>>>> that
>>>>>> term is usually used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevi Riley
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/11/2010 9:45 AM, Hedrick Gary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to add fuel to the fire here, but one cannot help being struck
>> by
>>>>> some
>>>>>>> of the similarities in sequences, even between Hebrew, English, and
>>>>> Greek.
>>>>>>> qof, resh, shin, tav
>>>>>>> p, q, r, s, t
>>>>>>> pi, rho, sigma, tau
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary Hedrick
>>>>>>> San Antonio, Texas USA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Kevin Riley wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The *alphabets* have a common ancestor.  That is not the same as
>> the
>>>>>>>> *languages* being cognate.  As far back as there is reliable
>> evidence,
>>>>> Greek
>>>>>>>> and Hebrew are not cognate languages.  In terms of language, if
>> there
>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>> 'proto-Canaanite', then it is the mother of Hebrew, Phoenician,
>>>>> Moabite,
>>>>>>>> Ammonite, etc, but not of Greek.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kevin Riley
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25/11/2010 4:41 AM, fred burlingame wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affirmative; the common parent = proto-canaanite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fred burlingame
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Christopher Kimball<
>>>>>>>>> transcriber AT tanach.us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Is Greek usually considered a cognate language of Hebrew?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris Kimball
>>>>>>>>>> West Redding, CT
>>>>>>>>>> USA
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>>>>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>>>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   --
>>>> --)---------------
>>>> "We are not yet what we already are" (J. Pieper).
>>>>
>>>> Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D. | Professor of Biblical Studies
>>>> Philadelphia Biblical University | 200 Manor Avenue | Langhorne, PA
>>>> 19047-2990
>>>> http://pbu.edu | 1215-702-4502 | Fax: 1-215-702-4533 |
>> www.fredputnam.org
>>>>  Before printing this email, think green!
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007
>> 3:19
>> PM
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew